Rhialto wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 18:16:Latest news and more to come at this Forbes link.

[UPDATE 3: Martyn Williams, a correspondent for IDG News Service, reports via Twitter that he's standing outside OnLive headquarters. "In the last 20mins have seen three people walk out of # OnLive with leaving boxes. Still unclear what's happening inside pic.twitter.com/ZYFBxCyC"]

I love that they keep denying it...

Well, they're denying that they're going out of business, and it seems they aren't. It seems they've been purchased and this is a restructuring.

So, they're technically right, but it's a minor hail mary of a technicality.

In before Beamer plays the role of the Iraq Defense Minister of the game indus.. fuck too late.

Really?

Really?

That was pretty negative, I'd say. The facts of my post:1) They're denying going out of business. It appears they are not, as they've been purchased2) They're denying nothing else, which is why they can deny. It's a technicality, as I said, they're technically right. But it's a minor technicality, as it appears they would have gone out of business had they not been purchased, so they're saved by a hail mary.

I don't see how correcting someone saying they're lying by saying they're actually not, but just barely, is "iraqi minister of defense."

Let's get our own facts straight - they are NOT going out of business. Making that claim is absolutely pointless. What they are is desperately selling themselves to stay in business. It's maybe a minor distinction, but a key distinction.For a bunch of people that code I'm always amazed at the number of people here that think being kind of right but pretty much wrong is good enough. Let's have some precision: they're still in business, but only by dismantling themselves.

Just giving you a hard time, I do find it amazing though that any time there's a post that paints either a publisher or the industry on the whole in a not so happy light, you're right in the middle of it all guns a blazing.

Because typically there are people here throwing out inaccuracies that aren't necessary. Things paint themselves bad enough, no reason to exaggerate and pretend things are going exactly as you want them to even though it isn't the case.

Several people here claimed OnLive went out of business. For the time being that isn't true. I think that's important enough a distinction. If someone else came in here and said OnLive was perfectly under control I'd correct them, too, but probably wouldn't need to because a dozen others would beat me to it.

Also, this is further proof, from the thread last night, that no PE firm would break up EA. Someone bought OnLive but did not buy the staff. The OnLive staff, dedicated to their only product, is much more important to the name than any staff at any EA studio, yet they still weren't important enough to keep around.Which makes me think this can't be ComCast or HP, because they'd need the staff. It has to be someone else already playing in this area. Also strange at how quick this was done - while plenty of staff is usually laid off in a merger generally they cherry pick the ones they want before laying anyone off. Here they seem to be doing it after... stupid.

Yeah because it's totally comparable between a game publisher with massive amounts of studios and IP to be compared to an online streaming service.

Helpful hint: patents and services are worth more than IP, outside of a few exceptions. EA does not own a single one of those exceptions.Do you really think the combined IP of EA is worth the $6 billion quoted in that article? Of course not.

EA only has value as EA. Its individual parts are worthless. OnLive has no individual parts, but it has a service that currently exists and was built via patents. That has value to someone as it's a physical thing. EA is simply an organization as strong as its people, who can leave at any given time.